But the D only had a contract with Tom. It was not the P who failed to pay the D. I think the judge made the correct decision. The D needs to sue Tom for payment.
Contracts are two-way streets, and each party should gain something of value in the transaction. Since there was no direct contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendant, the photographer should not have been compelled to give the photos to the Plaintiffs. Once the Plaintiffs got their photos, they might fight as vigorously in their case with "Tom," the middleman who pocketed the money for doing nothing. Even if "Tom" returns the money eventually, the photographer still has to wait to get paid.
The photographer spent his own money to get the pictures taken and processed to produce the negatives and prints, and since he has not yet been reimbursed for his time, equipment and materials by the time of the trial, the "property" should still be his. The judge was swayed by the woman's emotional response to the wedding photos, and unfairly characterized it as a one-way business transaction all in favor of the Plaintiffs.
I dont think this was fair. The plaintiffs are suing "Tom" & will get their money back because he didn't do any of the work & they got their pictures. The defendent who did the all the work plus spent more money out of his own pocket gets nothing? Even if he tacks on to their lawsuit "Tom" will have to pay back the $2,500 to the P is he going to put out another $1800 for what the D is out (& the P's get free photos), or will "T" pay D his money & refund the difference to the P's?
WHAT A MESS!! I FEEL BAD FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER. THEY SHOULD BAN TOGETHER AND GO AFTER TOM WITH A VENGENCE!!! HE STARTED THIS SHIT PLUS HE HAS THE MONEY - PHTOGRAPHER IS RIGHT - NO
This was a bad decision. There are many others like in on youtube, and basically if the def had an agreement with tom then he should hand TOM the photos when Tom pays him. Then the plaintiffs should sue Tom for the photos. JM said it herself, THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THESE TWO PARTIES.
Extremely unfair ruling, she made an emotional judgement and contradicted her own logic about what exactly a contract is, between two parties. JJ would have told them to sue the correct person, I've seen it
@darepow Only if he did not bring the photos to court would Judge Judy had done that. Once the property is in court it must go to the rightful owner, no question, or else the court will become a contributing factor. That was not the photographers property, nor is it Toms. Of course if the defendant came to court without the pictures the result would be for them to sue Tom, which they will anyway, but now Tom has two suits to deal with.
@darepow In the eyes of the law, the defendant became an agent for "Tom" when he accepted the job. Because the defendant was an agent of "Tom" and because "Tom" owed the plaintiffs photos and the defendant had the pics on his person, the judge had no choice but to order him to hand them over. Now, they can either go after "Tom" together or separately. I'm sure the plaintiffs will be kind enough to allow the defendant to join in on their lawsuit. It's basic contract law.
I understand what she is saying. The pictures does belong to the p. He needs to sue "Tom" for the money that he is out. This isn't the fault of the def. but it is also not the fault of the pla. I have seen this before.
One of the few times that I disagree with Judge Milian. (Other case that comes to mind is the wig case, but in that case, I do not disagree so much with the outcome, only with how plaintiffs were treated.) I have a law degree. It is not her property (yet). His agreement is with Tom, so if Tom paid him, he should hand property over to Tom, and only to Tom. Their lawsuit is with Tom, and defendant could be named as co-defendent in that lawsuit.
@skingpinspin The only reason she made him surrender the photos is because they were in her presence. She could not let him walk away with property that is not his. As unfair as it may seem. It is like, for example, someone stole your watch, you see me with it and take me to court. True I didn't steal it, but the Judge could not let me leave with it because it is your property. She would be party to the conspiracy, can you understand this? It is a tricky spot for sure, but she is right.
This is the most wrong decision ever made! Milian forced the defendant to hand over HIS property he paid for and labored for to someone he did not have any contract with. That's like saying Walmart has to give merchandise to someone who paid Sears for something.... Ludicrous and illegal ruling!! Judge should have dismissed the claim and allowed the plaintiff to purchase the property from the defendant. Whether she used new funds or, funds reimbursed from her pending litigation if successful.
dunno to much about america's law , but isnt that decision a bit unfair ? How about if this man never show up , they wil have no pictures at all. Something doesen match in this particular case for me
sounds to me like they've BOTH BEEN PLAYED FOR ABSOLUTE FOOLS BY THIS TOM GUY........he gets paid upfront, he gets someone else to do his job for him and he runs away with the money a richer man and didnt have to do anything to deserve the money in the 1st place.....TOM IS A CON ARTIST.
thanks for letting us know about the sound issue! I didn't pay attention until I checked every wire and cable in my office!! LOL!! Thanks also for posting these! Little things like this make me so happy!!! :)
Well, I haven't seen the whole case yet but I have to say that I feel sorry for both parties and the pictures look nice enough to me. I hope they have a long and happy marriage.
I am a photographer and this is terrible. This "Tom" should have called the bride and groom to let them know about the substitution. This photographer was STUPID for taking a job from a stranger 1 or 2 days before the wedding. A good photographer would NEVER do that. He DID have a contract with "Tom" and he should be sueing HIM! If you ever use a photographer names TOM from Conenticut RUN!!!!!!
@xPinkStrifex Agreed. The plaintiff seems like such a nice lady, I am sorry this happened to her. I also sort-of feel sorry for the defendant. Not "Tom" though. "Tom" can scr*w himself...!
This is why "The People's Court" is better then Judge Judy. They actually have cases that make you think some; unlike Judge Judy where there is yelling and screaming, Judge Millian thinks through the cases
that is a bad verdict because the pictures should be given to Tom not to the woman... he had a contract with him not with her -.-'' did this judge go to law school
@MsAnchy Yeah, Georgetown law; the photos belong to the Plaintiff because she already paid Tom for them. She paid for the photos, they are hers. The Defendant has to collect from Tom.
@MsAnchy i am not a law expert, but it seems to me u are right. Even if the photos are of her wedding, he should hand them over to Tom, not to her. Defendant never had a contract with her, why should he had to give the photos. Also who is this Tom guy,why was his last name never mentioned? From which city is he from and all the details of his job so as not to hire him. She never showed the receipt and contract that was made with Tom.Defendants reputation will boost up after this.
@MarkMcCall51 Because the Defendant said, " I had a contract with the Plaintiff." He went on to say that he did "Everything they asked me to." By his own testimony he had a contract. They fulfilled there end by paying Tom; the defendant held up his end. he needs to sue Tom
I agree with JM. The D's contract is with Tom not the P's. The D is too lazy to go after Tom. The D should have had T fax him a contract for such an emergency. Duh.
The judge is wrong in this case. She ordered the Defendent to give the photos to the plaintiffs, but since he never contracted with them...they are technically his property. The only one he should have given the photos to is Tom...after he receives payment. It is up to the plaintiffs to then retrieve the photos from Tom.
your wrong caz he did have a contract he had a contract with tom and that is what he took the job off of and he was stupid enough to agree to that contract
How come the Judge didn´t ask for a proof that the plaintiff in did pay the first photograph (Thomas), maybe they didn´t and now they got the photos by free.
@Jgarcia68 Because that is something the Judge will consider when they enter into their lawsuit with Tom. Secondly, they more than likely would not be suing Tom if they had not paid him.
But the D only had a contract with Tom. It was not the P who failed to pay the D. I think the judge made the correct decision. The D needs to sue Tom for payment.
tubelarr 3 months ago
Contracts are two-way streets, and each party should gain something of value in the transaction. Since there was no direct contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendant, the photographer should not have been compelled to give the photos to the Plaintiffs. Once the Plaintiffs got their photos, they might fight as vigorously in their case with "Tom," the middleman who pocketed the money for doing nothing. Even if "Tom" returns the money eventually, the photographer still has to wait to get paid.
ncite1 3 months ago
The photographer spent his own money to get the pictures taken and processed to produce the negatives and prints, and since he has not yet been reimbursed for his time, equipment and materials by the time of the trial, the "property" should still be his. The judge was swayed by the woman's emotional response to the wedding photos, and unfairly characterized it as a one-way business transaction all in favor of the Plaintiffs.
ncite1 3 months ago
The female plaintiff is lovely! x
RoonJazz 3 months ago
I dont think this was fair. The plaintiffs are suing "Tom" & will get their money back because he didn't do any of the work & they got their pictures. The defendent who did the all the work plus spent more money out of his own pocket gets nothing? Even if he tacks on to their lawsuit "Tom" will have to pay back the $2,500 to the P is he going to put out another $1800 for what the D is out (& the P's get free photos), or will "T" pay D his money & refund the difference to the P's?
mischief4911 5 months ago
WHAT A MESS!! I FEEL BAD FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER. THEY SHOULD BAN TOGETHER AND GO AFTER TOM WITH A VENGENCE!!! HE STARTED THIS SHIT PLUS HE HAS THE MONEY - PHTOGRAPHER IS RIGHT - NO
GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED!! UGH!
BROOKLYNBRENDA 6 months ago
BILLY MAYS IS ALIVE
Infiiiidel 7 months ago
@Infiiiidel: LMAO
"HI, BILLY MAYS HERE, FOR PEOPLE'S COURT!"
chinopisces 6 months ago
@mrtapoche1 It doesnt matter if they are happy or not as long as you havent made a fool out of yourself in your efforts to please them.
globe255 7 months ago
If he's been in business as long as he said, he should have known he needed a contract ESPECIALLY if he is subcontractor.
kiddingme01 7 months ago
Maybe the Defendant IS Tom?
kiddingme01 7 months ago
I have heard of the phrase 'No good deed goes unpunished' Explain to me what it means.
uhegbu 8 months ago
i hate how JM yells for nothing at all.
kyialhuber2 8 months ago
take pix of the rabbit going into the hole!
TheRenaldo 8 months ago
I believe the defendant that she said she would pay him. He seems like a decent guy.
Imogen1885 9 months ago
This was a bad decision. There are many others like in on youtube, and basically if the def had an agreement with tom then he should hand TOM the photos when Tom pays him. Then the plaintiffs should sue Tom for the photos. JM said it herself, THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THESE TWO PARTIES.
Extremely unfair ruling, she made an emotional judgement and contradicted her own logic about what exactly a contract is, between two parties. JJ would have told them to sue the correct person, I've seen it
darepow 9 months ago
@darepow Only if he did not bring the photos to court would Judge Judy had done that. Once the property is in court it must go to the rightful owner, no question, or else the court will become a contributing factor. That was not the photographers property, nor is it Toms. Of course if the defendant came to court without the pictures the result would be for them to sue Tom, which they will anyway, but now Tom has two suits to deal with.
roblou62 8 months ago
@darepow In the eyes of the law, the defendant became an agent for "Tom" when he accepted the job. Because the defendant was an agent of "Tom" and because "Tom" owed the plaintiffs photos and the defendant had the pics on his person, the judge had no choice but to order him to hand them over. Now, they can either go after "Tom" together or separately. I'm sure the plaintiffs will be kind enough to allow the defendant to join in on their lawsuit. It's basic contract law.
blktrekie29 8 months ago
@darepow I totally agree with you, the plaintif only needs to sue Tom, they dont have any contract with this defendant.
DJFDW 4 months ago
thought something was up with the computer
rayrayrocks20 10 months ago
the pictures suck. that's the best part of this case.
mysterysailboat 10 months ago
I understand what she is saying. The pictures does belong to the p. He needs to sue "Tom" for the money that he is out. This isn't the fault of the def. but it is also not the fault of the pla. I have seen this before.
FireyBlaze101 10 months ago
One of the few times that I disagree with Judge Milian. (Other case that comes to mind is the wig case, but in that case, I do not disagree so much with the outcome, only with how plaintiffs were treated.) I have a law degree. It is not her property (yet). His agreement is with Tom, so if Tom paid him, he should hand property over to Tom, and only to Tom. Their lawsuit is with Tom, and defendant could be named as co-defendent in that lawsuit.
skingpinspin 10 months ago
@skingpinspin The only reason she made him surrender the photos is because they were in her presence. She could not let him walk away with property that is not his. As unfair as it may seem. It is like, for example, someone stole your watch, you see me with it and take me to court. True I didn't steal it, but the Judge could not let me leave with it because it is your property. She would be party to the conspiracy, can you understand this? It is a tricky spot for sure, but she is right.
roblou62 8 months ago
Only time I disagree with Judge Milian. I have a law degree. It is not her property.
skingpinspin 10 months ago
This is the most wrong decision ever made! Milian forced the defendant to hand over HIS property he paid for and labored for to someone he did not have any contract with. That's like saying Walmart has to give merchandise to someone who paid Sears for something.... Ludicrous and illegal ruling!! Judge should have dismissed the claim and allowed the plaintiff to purchase the property from the defendant. Whether she used new funds or, funds reimbursed from her pending litigation if successful.
RcHelisRule 11 months ago
dunno to much about america's law , but isnt that decision a bit unfair ? How about if this man never show up , they wil have no pictures at all. Something doesen match in this particular case for me
LuciFrederiksen 11 months ago
sounds to me like they've BOTH BEEN PLAYED FOR ABSOLUTE FOOLS BY THIS TOM GUY........he gets paid upfront, he gets someone else to do his job for him and he runs away with the money a richer man and didnt have to do anything to deserve the money in the 1st place.....TOM IS A CON ARTIST.
Venusstar22 1 year ago
Sounds like "Tom" screwed them both.
Traci25 1 year ago
thanks for letting us know about the sound issue! I didn't pay attention until I checked every wire and cable in my office!! LOL!! Thanks also for posting these! Little things like this make me so happy!!! :)
derricksnina 1 year ago
jpegs... Dude, give them some quality.. It's to be expected though.
TrynaBeeFunny 1 year ago
Well, I haven't seen the whole case yet but I have to say that I feel sorry for both parties and the pictures look nice enough to me. I hope they have a long and happy marriage.
elynorah 1 year ago 2
Tom is probably watched this episode and started off chuckling to himself and by the end of the episode he probably shit his self.
theextrastrength 1 year ago
Harvey Levin is soo rude i just cant stand him!
AvFoJa 1 year ago
I am a photographer and this is terrible. This "Tom" should have called the bride and groom to let them know about the substitution. This photographer was STUPID for taking a job from a stranger 1 or 2 days before the wedding. A good photographer would NEVER do that. He DID have a contract with "Tom" and he should be sueing HIM! If you ever use a photographer names TOM from Conenticut RUN!!!!!!
xPinkStrifex 1 year ago 19
@xPinkStrifex Agreed. The plaintiff seems like such a nice lady, I am sorry this happened to her. I also sort-of feel sorry for the defendant. Not "Tom" though. "Tom" can scr*w himself...!
RoonJazz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Call sexy girl just now naneedj.info
dilkaa 1 year ago
This is why "The People's Court" is better then Judge Judy. They actually have cases that make you think some; unlike Judge Judy where there is yelling and screaming, Judge Millian thinks through the cases
1333fuller 1 year ago
that is a bad verdict because the pictures should be given to Tom not to the woman... he had a contract with him not with her -.-'' did this judge go to law school
MsAnchy 1 year ago
@MsAnchy Yeah, Georgetown law; the photos belong to the Plaintiff because she already paid Tom for them. She paid for the photos, they are hers. The Defendant has to collect from Tom.
1333fuller 1 year ago
@MsAnchy i am not a law expert, but it seems to me u are right. Even if the photos are of her wedding, he should hand them over to Tom, not to her. Defendant never had a contract with her, why should he had to give the photos. Also who is this Tom guy,why was his last name never mentioned? From which city is he from and all the details of his job so as not to hire him. She never showed the receipt and contract that was made with Tom.Defendants reputation will boost up after this.
otirudam 1 year ago
I'm a wedding photographers.
Judge said it herself when talking to the photographer...."you have a contract with Tom, not with the bride".
It's there in black and white.
Why hand over the negatives if your NOT UNDER CONTRACT TO DO SO.
MarkMcCall51 2 years ago
@MarkMcCall51 Because the Defendant said, " I had a contract with the Plaintiff." He went on to say that he did "Everything they asked me to." By his own testimony he had a contract. They fulfilled there end by paying Tom; the defendant held up his end. he needs to sue Tom
1333fuller 1 year ago
I agree with JM. The D's contract is with Tom not the P's. The D is too lazy to go after Tom. The D should have had T fax him a contract for such an emergency. Duh.
curliefro 2 years ago 2
I can't stand people like that guy.
If he doesn't think it's worth it to sue Tom, then he should just shut up and move on.
Dreamydeppmama 2 years ago 15
@Dreamydeppmama Unless he is Tom's partner and holding the films hostage was their way of extorting more money.
xinecallaw 5 months ago
The judge is wrong in this case. She ordered the Defendent to give the photos to the plaintiffs, but since he never contracted with them...they are technically his property. The only one he should have given the photos to is Tom...after he receives payment. It is up to the plaintiffs to then retrieve the photos from Tom.
NevaehSoleil 2 years ago
If you go by morals, then yes, it was the wrong decision, but in court you have to go by law, and legally she was right.
Dreamydeppmama 2 years ago
well even morally its wrong caz that guy just wanted to be paid but morally he should have gave the pics caz he took a job not knowing everything
kazooga1234 2 years ago
your wrong caz he did have a contract he had a contract with tom and that is what he took the job off of and he was stupid enough to agree to that contract
kazooga1234 2 years ago
@NevaehSoleil The Defendant said "I had a contract with the Defendant." The Defendant had a contract with them. He said he did anyway.
1333fuller 1 year ago
How come the Judge didn´t ask for a proof that the plaintiff in did pay the first photograph (Thomas), maybe they didn´t and now they got the photos by free.
Jgarcia68 2 years ago
well there was no agruement that they paid everyone there says they paid tom and the d said that tom had to pay him caz they paid tom
kazooga1234 2 years ago
@Jgarcia68 Because that is something the Judge will consider when they enter into their lawsuit with Tom. Secondly, they more than likely would not be suing Tom if they had not paid him.
1333fuller 1 year ago